In cases like Universe Tankships of Monrovia v International Transport Workers Federation and North Ocean Shipping Co. The existence was first recognized in England by Kerr J in Sibeon v the Sibotre where he held that “a plea of compulsion or coercion would be available where a person was forced to enter into a contract under an imminent threat of having his house burnt down or a valuable picture slashed.” Economic duress is when one party uses their superior economic power in an illegitimate way so as to coerce the other contracting party to agree to a particular set of terms. In Maskel v Horner, the plaintiff was able to have the contract set aside for duress to goods.Įconomic duress: The most difficult kind of duress, which is also the most difficult to crystalize, is economic duress. This decision has however been severely criticized, and it has been departed from in cases that came after. In Skeate v Beale, it was held that unlawful detention of another’s goods did not constitute duress. It was also stated in the case that contracts made under duress are void and not voidable.ĭuress of goods: Duress of goods was not regarded as constituting duress initially at common law. In Barton v Armstrong, where threats to kill were uttered, the Privy Council held that the threat need not be the sole reason for entering into the contract and it was sufficient that the threat was one of the factors which influenced the victim to enter the contract. Common law always had no difficulty in setting aside contracts for duress to person. This may constitute of violence to the claimant, threat of violence, threat to the claimant’s freedom, or threat to any members of his family. Types of duressĭuress to person: This is the most obvious kind of duress. She claimed damages for assault, but the court refused the claim for damages because she consented to the examination and the duress was not from the hospital. In Latter v Bradell, a housemaid was ordered by her mistress to submit to a medical examination on suspicion of pregnancy which turned out to be unfounded. However, duress at common law has become wider to cover economic duress and duress of goods.Īs a general rule, duress from a third party cannot be the basis of an action. Duress under common law formerly only applied to contracts entered under threat of injury or imprisonment of a person’s body or to the person’s spouse, parent, child or other near relative. The scope of duress at common law was a very narrow one, with the concept of undue influence coming under equity to cover some other areas not covered by common law. Two things which will allow a party to a contract to escape otherwise binding contractual liability are the presence of duress and undue influence in such a contract. However, there are some situations which will entitle a party who has entered a contract to escape contractual liability. In a contractual agreement, a party who has accepted an offer is usually bound by such a contract.
0 kommentar(er)
